Clinton's"Third Way"-a bit too utopian ?or does it lead to 1 world gov?

[Pallas180]

http://www.thirdway.org/

and this:

LONDON JULY 12. The former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, has rushed to the defence of his old ally
and friend Tony Blair with a strong caution to the British Prime Minister's Left-wing critics that any
attempt to rock the boat could result in losing power to the Right.

Mr. Clinton, who was the star guest at an international conference in London on the future of
Third Way politics, warned against the rise of a new "pro-change conservatism'' which has made
significant electoral gains in the U.S. and parts of Europe.

His advice to "our friends'' was not to abandon the "Third Way'' which he saw as an effective
alternative to both the far Left and the far Right.

In remarks that must have sounded music to Mr. Blair's ears in the prevailing climate of relentless
attacks on his policies from his own colleagues, Mr. Clinton praised him for "continuing to prove
everyday that economic prosperity and social progress go hand in hand''.

Mr. Clinton who was one of the architects of the Third Way, along with Mr. Blair and a host of
European, African and Latin American leaders, said that it had "worked everywhere it has been
given a fair chance'' and wondered why it was under attack in Britain.

-more-
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/07/13/stories/2003071301741200.htm

[lcordero]

1. It has not "worked everywhere it has been given a fair chance''

We are losing jobs because of it. People overseas are not getting anything good out of it either. The only people that benefit out of it is big business.

[diplomats]

3. ?????

We had tremendous job growth when Clinton was president, not job loss. I'm not trying to defend NAFTA, etc., I was just making a statement about the overall performance of the economy when he was president.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Just another name for Corporate Control

It's not Clinton's Third Way, it's the DLC as well. This *is* a world government scheme, and results in corporations that can't be controlled by national governments.

[Pallas180]

4. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming. That and the WTO

were the only things I didnt like about Clinton...

I also recall him saying something about " Well the people
will have to give up some of their freedoms" but I dont
remember what it was in relation to.....

DLC=Bush lite=Bush is putting third way into effect pronto without Clinton's
savoir faire and cleverness about slowly initiating.

Third Way = another name for Imperialism?, this time not over individual countries
but the world?

Wait a minute. If we put all the billionaires/millionaires together, would they
have more money than all the people in the world?

Money is power.

If we dont buy, they dont have power.

Who has more power moneywise?

Them?

or us?

serious question.

[tameszu]

5. Depends how you look at things...

"Third Way"-type policies have been pretty successful in knocking the hard right back on its heels in a number of North Atlantic countries and in giving globalization reform movements some rhetorical space with which to hold centrist (centre-right or centre-left) governments accountable.

You have to think about political action in terms of alternatives. What are my choices and what's the best I can do for the world? The basic potential political options as I see them are:

i) Deregulated, laissez faire capitalism everywhere (corporate utopia)
ii) Nationalistic capitalism (laissez faire domestically, protectionist trade policy)
iii) Global redistributive socialism (alternatively, a system of small independent closed communities who agree not to affect one another)
iv) Welfare-state protectionism (mixed capitalism, restricted trade).
v) Third Way mixed capitalism and free/fair trade
vi) Status quo (a mushy mix of (ii) and (iv))

I personally have deeply socialistic/Greenish leanings, so I'd ideally prefer (iii). But there's too many people who don't share my vision and my vision and I don't think it's worth a bloody revolution to do it, or even risking the domestic suffering that might occur, if our country impoverished itself by trying it but it didn't work because not enough other countries cooperated.

(i) and (ii) are obviously selfish and icky, but I wonder whether a lot of progressives who are connected to labor and farm movements realize that (iv) is also selfish and harms third world workers as well?

Given the options, I think that some form of Third Way mixed capitalism--free and fair trade in a truly multilateral forum that (ideally) prevents the wealthier countries from using their bargaining power to muscle over poorer countries seems to be the best alternative. The problem with Third Way right now is that not enough of the wealthier countries are on board with the "fair" part in a serious manner, and that there is not enough democratic input. But if the left can continue of the direction of putting together a positive, constructive message (i.e. Fair Trade and Just Globalization, rather than Anti-Globalization), we might be able to get somewhere.

One thing I found striking about the current left-right spectrum is that much of the more activist left defines itself as "anti" the World Bank and WTO, whereas a lot of the right thinks the WTO and free trade are just peachy but they hate the UN. The thing is, we have to realize that those institutions are interconnected--it's not entirely to bash one set and then try to prop up the other...perhaps both sides will learn this pretty soon (I hope the left in a less costly manner than the right)...

[AndyTiedye]

6. Bush isn't good for (most) Business

He is only good for his cronies.

Clinton and the "third way" may be somewhat corporatist,
but they are at least fair about it. They also tried to bring
us up to the rest of the first worlds' standards in some basic
stuff like health care (and got reamed for it).

There is nothing inherently wrong with free trade, or with an
international organization devoted to it, if that organization
addresses the protection of workers and the environment
in something other than a "least-common-denominator" fashion.

The WTO is not such a body, as it only represents selected
international business interests.

If the global trade bodies were truely representative
they could be a force for good in the world.